首页 旅游英语 飞机起降时能打手机吗?





  WAS ALEC BALDWIN RIGHT? When the actor tussled withAmerican Airlines
personnel last December over his desire tocontinue playing a game on his phone
during takeoff, he wasevicted from the flight. Defying airline safety rules is
not a goodidea, but was Baldwin perhaps correct not to take the dangerseriously?

  On Aug. 31, the Federal Aviation Administration requested public comment on
its longstandingpolicy of prohibiting the use of personal electronics during
takeoffs and landings. The restrictionsdate back to 1991 and were motivated in
part by anecdotal reports from pilots and flight crewsthat electronic devices
affected an airliner's navigation equipment or disrupted communicationbetween
the cockpit and the ground. Over the years, however, Boeing has been unable
toduplicate these problems, and the FAA can only say that the devices' radio
signals 'may' interferewith flight operations.

  To gather some empirical evidence on this question, we recently conducted
an online survey of 492 American adults who have flown in the past year. In this
sample, 40% said they did not turntheir phones off completely during takeoff and
landing on their most recent flight; more than 7% left their phones on, with the
Wi-Fi and cellular communications functions active. And 2% pulled afull Baldwin,
actively using their phones when they weren't supposed to.

  Consider what these numbers imply. The odds that all 78 of the passengers
who travel on anaverage-size U.S. domestic flight have properly turned off their
phones are infinitesimal: less thanone in 100 quadrillion, by our rough
calculation. If personal electronics are really as dangerous asthe FAA rules
suggest, navigation and communication would be disrupted every day on
domesticflights. But we don't see that.

  Why has the regulation remained in force for so long despite the lack of
solid evidence to supportit? Human minds are notoriously overzealous 'cause
detectors.' When two events occur close intime, and one plausibly might have
caused the other, we tend to assume it did. There is no reasonto doubt the
anecdotes told by airline personnel about glitches that have occurred on flights
whenthey also have discovered someone illicitly using a device.

  But when thinking about these anecdotes, we don't consider that glitches
also occur in theabsence of illicit gadget use. More important, we don't
consider how often gadgets have been inuse when flights have been completed
without a hitch. Our survey strongly suggests that thereare multiple gadget
violators on almost every flight.

  Fear is a powerful motivator, and precaution is a natural response.
Regulators are loath to makepolicies less restrictive, out of a justifiable
concern for passenger safety. It is easy to visualize thehorrific consequences
should a phone cause a plane to crash, so the FAA imposes thisinconvenience as a

  Once a restriction is in place, though, removing it becomes a challenge
because every day withouta gadget-induced accident cements our belief that the
status quo is right and justified. Unfortunately, this logic is little better
than that of Homer Simpson, who organized an elaborateBear Patrol in the city of
Springfield and exulted in the absence of bear sightings that ensued.

  We are not suggesting that people should disobey the current rules. But we
believe strongly thatpolicies like the FAA's ban should be based on evidence
rather than on fear. The evidence showsthat nearly every flight must have some
phones and gadgets on, and those flights have not beenfalling out of the sky. 

  亚历克?鲍德温(Alec Baldwin)做得对吗?2011年12月,这位演员坚持要在航班起飞时继续玩手机游戏,与美国航空公司(American

  2012年8月31日,美国联邦航空管理局(Federal Aviation









本文来自网络,不代表一鸣英语网立场。转载请注明出处: http://www.chinesemfc.org/syyy/lyyy/14396/

作者: admin



您的电子邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注




在线咨询: QQ交谈

邮箱: email@wangzhan.com